Similarly situated employees, upon verification, must receive equivalent Y-class HRA benefits.

The six applicants, Junior Statistical Officers serving in the National Statistics Office, Field Operations Division, Regional Office, Aizawl, challenged the respondents’ denial of House Rent Allowance (HRA) at the rate applicable to “Y” class cities under the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017.

They contended that employees similarly situated in Kohima and other locations had been granted higher HRA pursuant to orders passed in earlier proceedings, particularly O.A. No. 230/2004, which was upheld by the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 1035/2007 and thereafter by the Supreme Court upon dismissal of SLP (C) No. CC 13260/2010.

The respondents opposed the claim, submitting that, under the Office Memoranda dated 21 July 2015 and 7 July 2017, all places in Mizoram were entitled only to HRA at “Z” class city rates.

They argued that neither the Sixth nor the Seventh Central Pay Commission had specifically classified places in Mizoram for “Y” class HRA and that the earlier decisions relied upon by the applicants did not govern the current HRA regime.

Whether the applicants, being employees posted at Aizawl and allegedly similarly situated to employees who had obtained relief in earlier proceedings, were entitled to consideration for HRA at the “Y” class city rate rather than the “Z” class rate.

Whether the respondents were required to extend the benefit of the earlier final decisions concerning higher HRA to the applicants without compelling them to undergo fresh, prolonged litigation.

Whether the applicants’ individual service claims required verification before granting the benefit of higher HRA.

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated government employees should receive equal treatment in matters of pay and allowances, including HRA, and that benefits flowing from a final judicial determination should not be denied to employees who are identically situated.

It relied on the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 230/2004, which directed consideration of HRA at the rate applicable to “B” class cities for similarly situated employees in Kohima; that decision was upheld by the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 1035/2007 and attained finality after dismissal of SLP (C) No. CC 13260/2010 by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal also considered its subsequent decisions, including O.A. Nos. 282/2013, 378/2019, 381/2000 and 146/2019, which recognized that employees posted under identical territorial conditions could not be subjected to an inferior HRA bracket when similarly situated employees had received the upgraded rate.

The HRA Office Memoranda dated 21 July 2015 and 7 July 2017 were also considered as the respondents’ basis for applying “Z” class rates in Mizoram.

The Tribunal found that the earlier decision in O.A. No. 230/2004 had been affirmed by both the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court and therefore could not be disregarded or rendered ineffective through a restrictive interpretation by the department.

It further noted that the respondents had implemented the earlier order for the successful applicants but had not extended the same benefit to other employees who might be similarly situated.

Applying the principle of parity, the Tribunal held that the respondents ought to have examined the applicants’ claims in light of the established judicial position instead of compelling them to institute separate proceedings.

Nevertheless, because entitlement depended upon the applicants’ individual service circumstances and similarity with the protected employees, the Tribunal directed verification of each applicant’s claim rather than granting the higher HRA automatically.

If any applicant was found to be similarly situated to the employees covered by the earlier orders, the respondents were directed to grant that applicant the same HRA benefit at the applicable “Y” class city rate, together with consequential benefits, within three months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

If any applicant was found not entitled, the respondents were required to issue a detailed and reasoned speaking order.

The O.A. and any pending M.A. were accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.